Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Nerio Suela

    Uploaded by

    Antoniette Maria Lucero
    67 views1 page
    The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Original Title

    People vs Nerio Suela

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    67 views1 page

    People Vs Nerio Suela

    Uploaded by

    Antoniette Maria Lucero
    The three defendants were charged with robbery with homicide and simple robbery for robbing their victims of 500,000 pesos in cash, electronics, and jewelry while inflicting serious wounds that caused the death of one victim. The trial court found the defendants guilty based on their extrajudicial confessions. On appeal, the defendants argued that their extrajudicial confessions should not have been admitted against them. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel requires the lawyer to be present from the start of questioning until the signing of any confession to advise and assist their client, and to ensure the confession is made voluntarily and the person understands the consequences in relation to their constitutional rights. While counsel need not dissuade a confession, their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    People vs Nerio Suela, Edgar Suela and Edgardo Batocan

    G.R. No. 133570-71, 15 January 2002


    Facts
    Brothers Nerio and Edgar Suela, and an Edgardo Batoan, !ere harged !ith
    ro""ery !ith ho#iide and si#$le ro""ery. %r#ed !ith handguns and a &ni'e,
    the three !ere a"le to ro" their (iti#s o' )500,000 in ash, a olored *+, three
    ,3- digital a#eras and assorted .e!elries/ and in the $roess, in'lited serious
    and #ortal !ounds !hih !ere the diret and i##ediate ause o' the death o'
    Geroni#o Ga"ilo.
    0n the "asis o' the e1tra .udiial on'essions o' the aused, the Regional *rial
    2ourt o' 3ue4on 2ity ,Branh 55- 'ound the a$$ellants guilty "eyond reasona"le
    dou"t. 6n their res$eti(e "rie's, the a$$ellants asri"ed to the trial ourt error in
    onsidering the e1tra .udiial on'essions as ad#issi"le against the#.
    Issue:
    7hat is the duty o' a ounsel in the $roess o' ustodial in(estigation8
    Held:
    6n People v. Labtan , the 2ourt e1$lained that 9:t;he right to ounsel is a
    'unda#ental right and onte#$lates not a #ere $resene o' the la!yer "eside
    the aused.< =urther#ore, an e''eti(e and (igilant ounsel 9neessarily and
    logially :re>uires; that the la!yer "e $resent and a"le to ad(ise and assist his
    lient 'ro# the ti#e the on'essant ans!ers the 'irst >uestion as&ed "y the
    in(estigating o''ier until the signing o' the e1tra.udiial on'ession. ?oreo(er,
    the la!yer should asertain that the on'ession is #ade (oluntarily and that the
    $erson under in(estigation 'ully understands the nature and the onse>uene o'
    his e1tra.udiial on'ession in relation to his onstitutional rights. % ontrary rule
    !ould undou"tedly "e antagonisti to the onstitutional rights to re#ain silent, to
    ounsel and to "e $resu#ed innoent.<
    *rue, ounsel does not neessarily ha(e to dissuade the $erson under
    in(estigation 'ro# on'essing. But his "ounden duty is to $ro$erly and 'ully
    ad(ise his lients on the nature and onse>uenes o' an e1tra.udiial on'ession.

    You might also like